TR EMERITUS

By Bhaskaran Kunju The recent Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report is just a tip of the iceberg in our Government’s shift on the foreign worker policy, as seen in this year’s Budget report. Given the inadvertent adverse effect it has had on productivity, it is high time the authorities looked into this matter. However one issue regarding foreigners that has always been a thorn on the side of the PAP and has never been let out of sight, has been the involvement of foreigners in domestic affairs. There is some leeway when it comes to academic matters but in terms of media coverage and direct involvement in politics it is an area of strict no-go. In 1988 American diplomat, Hank Hendrickson, the First Secretary of the US Embassy in Singapore, was expelled for ‘meddling in Singapore politics’. Most recently the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) and The Economist fell foul of the OB markers and were sued for defamation on two separate occasions. For the latter it wasn’t the first. The expectation is that foreign publications should refrain from critiquing the Singapore Government for it may adversely affect the credibility and image of our political system and our leaders. Given our history I think anyone with any sense of patriotism should have some sense of pride in keeping our domestic affairs to ourselves. It isn’t a question of political affiliation. However much discontent we may have with our political system it is an issue for Singaporeans to rectify, not foreigners. While the Government has been active in defending its integrity, somehow the net has been left open for Singaporeans to be treated as stooges by foreigners in some instances. Recently one publication has found itself in the mainstream and was highlighted on this site in an article a couple of weeks ago. Singapore Business Review (SBR), a business news magazine owned and run predominantly by foreigners, had a report on the recent poly fee hikes headlined as “Foreign students biggest losers as Government puts citizens first.” While fee hikes were all around, there was a differentiation made to ensure that citizens and foreigners were not on the same platform, which is understandable and long overdue in the first place. So it is rather out of line to have a foreign publication skew the news to make it seem like foreigners in Singapore are being mistreated. If in case you might brush this off as just a poor headlining incident, then the Twitter feeds of the said publications on this matter are far more damning: But this isn’t a one off incident either. On February 18, an article written by Mr Tim Charlton titled “Singaporeans gambled ‘til they dropped” made the rounds online. It was the second of a two-part review of the opening day of the Resorts World at Sentosa Casino.  This SBR article claimed that ‘Singaporeans, who can only stay in the Casino for 24 hours after paying a $100 levy, decided to take a quick nap between gambling to sleep on the floors of the Casino before presumably waking up to try their luck again’. Now here’s where Mr Charlton’s story falls apart. The levy is paid by both Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs), yet Mr Charlton is somehow certain that those on the floor were indeed Singaporeans. One might give Mr Charlton the benefit of the doubt and accept that maybe he had approached the said individuals and checked on their nationalities. But that wasn’t the case either. In his first part of the article from the day before on February 17, “The good, the bad and the ugly at Resorts World opening” he claims, “Whilst it's true I did make the trek to Sentosa, and the almost 400 metre trek from one end of the carpark to the escalator, I did not, in fact, manage to enter the casino halls.” So it does lead me to wonder exactly how Mr Charlton made his conclusion and run such a damning headline about Singaporeans. In stories run by The Straits Times (ST) observations of people sleeping on the floors were indeed made. However according to these reports the incidence of people sleeping on the floors was due to the long wait in the never-ending queues and occurred outside the Casinos. Another point of contention is the photo that SBR provides in its article as proof. The photo was supposedly taken inside the gambling halls, and shows a group of people sleeping on floor mats. The unusual thing is that there is a similar photo that was run by ST, but taken from a wider angle and seems to show a very similar location with people sleeping on the floor as well. Furthermore the location provided by SBR looks nothing like the inside of a Casino. You can make the comparison of the two photos below. The SBR photo is on top: A Lianhe Wanbao article did however quote a patron having seen people sleeping on the floors of the Casino, though these individuals were identified as foreign workers and not Singaporeans. In fact according to most reports (including Mr Charlton’s first report) there were far more foreigners than Singaporeans in the queues as foreigners were not subjected to the entry levy imposed on Singaporeans and PRs. Inside, the proportions were reportedly the same as well with even a significant number of blue-collar foreign workers in the midst. So who did get the reports right? In this instance I believe the SPH owned publications were right in their coverage. Mr Tim Charlton is no rookie mercenary reporter but the Editor-in-Chief at SBR and it is disheartening that he would choose to publish an article with claims he could not personally validate and a headline that is in poor taste. SBR’s Twitter feed was again in overdrive, promoting the apparent ugliness of Singaporeans. One might excuse it as just exuberant promotion of the publication but the claims made in the Twitter feed of the recent Budget announcement also had shades of apparent foreigner oppression: The most irksome part of it all however is the use of Singapore in the publication’s name, which is both exploitative and opportunistic in light of the coverage provided by the publication. SBR does have its fair share of hard news reports focused solely on finance and business news but it is not easy to overlook the fact that a foreign entity has chosen to trump up foreigner woes while at the same time paint Singaporeans and Singapore in bad light, if and when it chooses to. As mentioned earlier, the establishment has taken a hard stance on foreign intervention in domestic affairs. Course of action is taken in cases that directly affect the credibility of the Government and political structure, but the same due course should be in place to ensure that the integrity of Singaporeans is also protected. It is only then that one may look at it as a righteous act that protects the integrity of the county as a whole. The most recent example of the need to protect the integrity of Singaporeans can be seen in the handling of the hit-and-run case involving Dr Silviu Ionescu. It is heartening to see that the case is still being pursued, but I believe it will be a travesty should Dr Ionescu get away with his crime. The idea of ‘Singaporeans to debate and resolve our own issues’ should be ingrained in us all, as only then can we look to make a positive change lest we forever be in a state of dependency, be it with the ruling Government or on foreign intervention. It is alright if foreigners are here to contribute productively, in fact they are welcomed to should the numbers permit, but should it then turn into a game of ‘Iceman Cometh’ whilst they are still of foreign status, then it crosses the line. I believe no country or her citizens who value their sovereignty would welcome such interference. It is a matter of pride and autonomy and anything else borders on subjugation by proxy. Even the most oppressed of nations found liberation from within and we are nowhere near such a state of oppression. The topic of foreigners in Singapore is a sticky one and over the past few years, it has been one of the most contentious domestic issues as well. Unfortunately it has also brought out the worst in people. But that in no way means it is an issue that lacks justification in the first place. Terms like xenophobia are thrown around conveniently to dissipate the discontent but this doesn’t at all aid in a balanced discourse of the issue. The real issue lies in the quantity and quality of the influx of foreigners on our shores and in the instance of this discussion, on the role of foreigners in domestic affairs. Back in December 2007 a group of exchange students at the National University of Singapore were stopped by the authorities and severely reprimanded for trying to stage a demonstration in support of the Myanmar uprisings during the ASEAN Summit. While their intentions were pure and of the best interest for the people of Myanmar, it is rude that they chose not to abide by the rules of their host country, even if they had found it not to their liking. It is a matter of principle and respect. But there have been far worse consequences for foreigners who chose to waddle into domestic matters. In early 2004, post SARS epidemic, Singapore Airlines (SIA) found itself locked in a standoff with the Air Line Pilots Association-Singapore (Alpa-S) over issues of pay cuts and other management-staff issues which also included the problem of foreign based pilots being given preference in picking desirable flight routes while leaving ‘scraps’ to the local pilots. The Alpa-S incidentally is not an NTUC affiliated labour union. In this instance the matter deteriorated to the point where members of the Alpa-S held a discussion with then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Istana on more than one occasion. It wasn’t the first time that SM Lee found himself mediating with the pilots union and in 1980 they had a run-in with him when he was the Prime Minister. SM Lee’s intervention in the 2004 incident was hence explained by then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in parliament, “SM did this rather than one of the other ministers, because this was unfinished business left over from 1980 when there were troubles between SIA and the pilots' union which SM handled.” Now the relevance of this incident to this article lies in what happened thereafter. Captain Ryan Goh Yew Hock, a senior pilot with SIA was fingered as the main instigator of the debacle. The Alpa-S issue had arisen after members had ousted the incumbent executive committee. According to a Straits Times report SM Lee had singled out Capt Goh during the discussions with the pilots union and ‘was accused of working behind the scenes, crafting a petition to oust the council, but not signing it himself.’  He had also apparently been in the process of relocating to Australia. Captain Goh was a Malaysian citizen but had been a Singapore PR since 1981. Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng labeled the pilot an “undesirable immigrant” and his PR status was revoked. His undermining of SIA labour peace while at the same time planning an escape route to Australia was not taken well by the Government. Captain Goh eventually had to leave the country. In a Straits Times report dated March 7 2004, it was noted that  “Mr Lee made the point at that meeting (with the pilots union) that if Singapore 'goes down, it is not just SIA that goes down, but you go down too'. But it was different for PRs as they could opt out.” Let’s hope that this sentiment has not changed. *The Iceman Cometh is the name of a play by American playwright Eugene O’Neill. Copyright © The Temasek Review, 2009 Other articles by Bhaskaran Kunju: >> A rebuttal to Vikram Khanna's article on need for foreign workers >> How much immunity for a diplomat >> The saga of (dethroned) beauty queen Ris Low >> Is there room for more foreigners in Singapore? >> Why social cohesion is at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally >> Changes in political system to allow more alternative voices >> The untimely departure of Chip Goodyear >> Should universities be re-politicized? About Author: Bhaskaran Kunju is a Political Science and Communications and New Media undergraduate at the National University of Singapore. He is a regular contributor to the Straits Times Forum and TODAY Voices. He also writes for NLB and FAS and hopes to be a full-time journalist.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent In an interview with Shin Min Daily on 1 March 2010, PAP MP Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar GRC) claimed that he would raise the concerns brought up by his residents during a dialogue session last Saturday during the parliamentary session yesterday: “Though it (dialogue) may not solve the problems of the residents, but through it, we had managed to change some existing policies,” he was quoted as saying. According to Mr Baey, the three most important concerns on the minds of his residents are low wages of Singapore workers, sky-rocketing HDB flat prices and escalating healthcare costs. One would expect Mr Baey to press National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan to implement measures to reduce the prices of HDB flats, grilled Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong on his labor policies and questioned Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan on his plans to provide quality and affordable healthcare to Singaporeans. This is what Mr Baey said in parliament: Singapore should consider setting up a food museum, as part of national effort to preserve its rich cultural heritage. "Food is an important part of our rich cultural heritage - one which has been and will always been an attraction to locals and foreigners alike......The Food Museum could delve into aspects of local cuisine, such as 'why Hong Kong noodles did not originate from Hong Kong', and 'why our Hainanese chicken rice is different from that found in Hainan Island'," the Straits Times reported him as saying. With due respect to Mr Baey, these are hardly the issues which Singaporeans are concerned about. Time is money and he should not take up precious air time in parliament to harp on such frivolous matters. Mr Baey concluded his speech by emphasizing the importance of the "Singapore identity": "Now is the time for us to focus on consolidating aspects of our national culture, recording, preserving and further developing it. We will all play a part in shaping the outcome for our future generations." What Singapore identity do we still have when the demographics of the nation has been radically altered beyond recognition thanks to the PAP's liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies? Foreigners now make up 36 per cent of Singapore's population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 per cent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas. At the rate the PAP is mass importing foreigners into the country, the percentage of native Singaporeans may fall to below 50 per cent with time. Mr Baey is one classic example of a MP Singaporeans can do without with. We don't have to pay somebody $13,000 a month to talk about "food  and identity" in parliament.  Read More →

View the full-sized picture here I was passing by a notice board at a HDB estate when I saw the MoneySENSE cartoon (To buy or not to buy?) created and put up by the PAP. The advice given was sound, I thought. After all, being thrifty is a virtue, especially in these difficult times. And I would applaud such sensible advice, but for the fact that it was dished out by a ruling party that pays its executives obscenely bloated salaries, many times in excess of the market rate paid out to other world leaders, and in defiance of their own advice. I thought it hypocritical for them to advise citizens to scrimp and save while they themselves use taxpayers' money to pay themselves obscene amounts of money. It is all very well for them to talk about 'Needs' vs. 'Wants' when they are not the ones having to give up their 'Wants'. Thus, a parody cartoon strip was created and pasted next to the original to highlight the hypocrisy of PAP propaganda. And to give them a taste of their own medicine. After all, what is good for the goose has got to be good for the gander. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that a high profile charity event that took place last year, the 'We Are One' community service project which was jointly organized by CapitaLand, LEGO Singapore and MediaCorp only managed to raise a paltry S$300,000. That was a fiasco considering the amount of time, money and human resource spent by three corporate giants in Singapore for the project. Now, if our overpaid public servants took their own advice and subscribed to 'Needs' instead of 'Wants', they could easily save the Treasury a hefty US$22 million EVERY year! And without any need for expensive publicity stunts! Just like that, a generous US$22 million could go to charity or whatever needs fixing around the country EVERY year. IF the PAP took their own advice. Singa Crew  Read More →